The Austin Film Fest Screenplay Competition is a Scam.
According to the Austin Film Fest’s website, “Austin Film Festival’s Script Competitions stand a league apart. No velvet ropes, no VIP areas.” What they don’t advertise is that there may be no one actually reading your script or you may be getting feedback spit out from AI generators…and even when there’s proof, they don’t care.
Screenshot taken from the AFF website.
In most cases, entering a screenplay competition is a waste of money. The script I submitted, Winter War ‘84, is one that I’m proud of and I had a ton of fun writing, but I wasn’t expecting to win the competition. It’s a brutal siege film that caters to grimy exploitation/action fans, but after writing something more serious, I wanted to write something that was just fun. The thing about the Austin Film Fest that caught my eye was this part of their terms and conditions:
All readers are required to provide constructive notes for each script. Most importantly, they are also required to read each script in its entirety in order to give the full consideration that each writer deserves.
I’ve gotten BLCKLST coverage on scripts before that has certainly not been in my favor, but it’s important to see that criticism so that you can improve your work. So I submitted my screenplay to three different categories in the hopes that I’d get some feedback that would make me better, costing me $135. If you’re early and only submit to 1 category, it’ll cost you $55. From there, things go up. Unfortunately I did not get what I paid for, but rather received confirmation that no one actually read more than 9 pages of my script.
Here is a link to the feedback was given. The feedback starts with what they believe the plot is.
This was instantly fishy. Not only is this not a movie plot in general, it’s certainly not the plot of my story. In the first scene of my script (which will be linked below), you’ll see that while the ‘army buddy’ does return from his time of service and two of the characters reminisce about their time wrestling as youths, it’s merely the setup to get the characters out of an extremely toxic environment.
Next up, we have the ‘concept’, which is even more bizarre.
The first sentence is incorrect. While the two friends do like wrestling, they never plan to get back into the ring and “show each other what they’re made of”. My script certainly isn’t an original concept (it’s a siege movie directly influenced by Assault on Precinct 13 and Green Room), but I do think that it offers some unique perspectives. Of course you’d need to read it to know that. Now, the final sentence here is where my blood started to boil. Not only is objectifying women not really a script ‘concept’, it’s also a blatantly false accusation. More on that in a moment, because we need to look at the ‘overall’ feedback.
Before I address their comments, I should explain what the first scene really consists of. After seeing some wrestlers on-screen, two characters, Grant and Yancy, are forced into the kitchen with a bunch of very toxic drunks and Yancy’s extremely awful girlfriend. It’s designed to show what a pushover Yancy is as we see him verbally abused by everyone in the room. They’re constructed as awful people. Now, looking through the first few pages, one of the big jokes is that Yancy’s girlfriend has slept with nearly everyone in the room. There’s also an insensitive moment where one of the characters calls the Japanese ‘Japs’, but it’s because he’s ignorant. That moment is neither glorified by me or celebrated by characters in the scene. There are also no moments where ‘little people’ are referred to in any way.
The sentence, “Almost like the writer took advantage of the time period so they could make these insensitive jokes.” feels particularly odd, considering nothing said really leans on the time period and are conversations you could overhear at a bar right now. It felt like the reader read something they were incredibly offended by (although what that could be is a mystery to me) and decided it wasn’t for them…then comes the next sentence.
“Wrestling at the capacity that they do must take a lot out of them.”
…what? This comment almost makes me think the first few pages weren’t actually read, but rather run through an AI/chatGPT client once they realized it wasn’t for them. There’s one wrestler on the first page who gives a promo to the crowd.
Then there’s a dig on my structure and scene pacing which I instantly discount by this point knowing that the ‘reader’ didn’t read the script at all.
There are then three more boxes. In ‘structure’, they say that pieces of the story are missing and the actual point of the script is vague. Sure, if you only see the first 10 minutes of the movie, you’re certainly missing pieces of the story and the actual point would be vague. That’s why you watch the other 90 minutes.
The ‘characters’ dig is where I really think things get unfair. To call my female characters ‘flat, mere punchlines to jokes made by the men’ is insulting. If they had read the rest of the script, there are two characters (Wendy and Ruby) who are both strong characters integral to the plot. Again, had they read it, they’d know that.
I did reply to the email I received, briskly informing them of my experience and received this reply, which I just cannot believe based on the feedback I received.
Unfortunately, it appears that I was not the only one scammed out of receiving meaningful notes on my work. Here’s an example by this Twitter user that was told that their structure was…basically the structure of a screenplay. Probably written by AI.
Here’s a thread on Reddit that, similar to mine, outlines how inaccurate the feedback is compared to what’s actually in the script.
I have since found out that the Austin Film Festival does not pay readers for their time during the first round, which is a scumbag move in and of itself. When someone really has little motivation to read hundreds of scripts, it makes it pretty likely that they’ll try to find a way to cut corners. According to reports, they received close to 15,000 screenplays submitted to the festival. Even if all 15,000 were early birds at $55 (they weren’t) and only entered into one category (they weren’t), that would equal $825,000 for the screenplay competition alone. They can pay their readers.
Since then, I’ve emailed their Screenplay Department Director, and received this response:
What was this review going to get me? Well, I hoped it would get me $135 back, since that’s what I spent on entry fees. Like I said, I didn’t think my script was going to win (and the winners have already been announced anyway), but entering a contest like this means that everything should be judged fairly, and fair means actually having the script actually read.
A few days later, I received this note from Alyssa:
Apparently, they ‘agree with the reader’s overall evaluation of the script.”, which is baffling, BECAUSE THE READER DID NOT READ THE FUCKING SCRIPT. “The reader comments are complimentary with your entry which you opted to receive, your fee covers the competition submission.” The Austin Film Festival did not read my script, therefore, they did not hold up their end of the bargain in this competition submission.
Many people did receive valuable feedback and coverage from their readers. I’m happy for those who got what they paid for. But the AFF needs standards, a series of checks and balances, and accountability. I do not believe that I (among others) was given a fair shot because that would require actually reading the script.
If you’d like to see my script, here’s Winter War ‘84. It’s not about a group of old friends getting back in the ring, but you’ll know that once you…read it.
If the Austin Film Festival did anything like this to you (using AI, clearly not reading your script, etc.), I’d love to hear about it! Send me details below and I’d be glad to add it to this post.
